ArticleFrontiers in neurology2025
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCorrection:2025
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: With the development of endovascular therapy, the success rate of reperfusion for emergent large vessel occlusion (LVO) has significantly improved, but more achievements are still needed. Methods: The definition and technical details of Results: In total, 40 patients underwent IPC. Their mean age was 65 years (IQR, 34-83), and 72.5% were male. The median ASPECTS (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score) was 7. The median of NIHSS was 13. The preset IPC program was achieved in 95.0% of cases, with 0% procedure-related mortality and 2.5% morbidity. The incidence of procedure-related dissection was 0%. The incidence of thrombotic events was 2.5%. Extravasation of contrast media was recorded as a serious adverse event. One thrombotic event occurred in the LAA Group. However, there was no statistical difference in the incidence of adverse events between the LAA and non-LAA groups. The LAA and MCA groups had shorter IPC procedure times compared with non-LAA and ICA groups. Conclusion: The IPC technique is safe and feasible with an acceptable complication rate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.